RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03384 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect: Her separation (SPD) code “JFX” and corresponding narrative reason for separation, personality disorder, be changed to secretarial authority. Her reentry (RE) code “2C” (involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service) be changed 1J. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Dr. R and Dr. F were fraudulent when they claimed to be licensed psychiatrists. This deceptive arrogance provided them access to practice psychology without a license. Due to this act of deception, the evaluation cannot be credible and free of error. They used fake credentials. Dr. L knew they were not licensed; however, he cosigned the deception. Their findings led to her discharge. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 8 January 2002. On 11 August 2004, the applicant was notified of her commander’s intent to discharge her from the Air Force for Conditions That Interfere with Military Service (Mental Disorders). Specifically, on or about 29 July 2004, the applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder that rendered her unfit for duty. Her long-standing disorder of character, behavior and adaptability was of such severity it precluded her from adequate military service. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander’s notification memorandum. She also acknowledged her right to counsel and to submit statements on her behalf. The applicant elected to submit a statement for her commander’s consideration. On 1 September 2004, the separation authority approved the discharge. She was honorably discharged and credited with 2 years, 7 months and 7 days of active service. On 10 September 2013, the applicant petitioned the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB) requesting her reason and authority for discharge and her reentry code be changed. The DRB denied the request concluding the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibits C through E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.11 states "Airman may be discharged based upon one of the physical or mental conditions listed below when the commander determines the condition interferes with assignment or duty performance. When a psychiatrist or a PhD-level clinical psychologist confirms a diagnosis of a mental disorder under paragraph 5.11.9, that is so severe the member's ability to function effectively in the military environment is significantly impaired and the commander chooses not to initiate separation action, the commander must have the decision reviewed by the discharge authority". The commander was provided a report that indicated that the applicant was referred for evaluation due to concerns regarding paranoia, a blatant disregard for authority, emotional outbursts and her reactions to feedback which made supervisors and peers fearful of repercussion. The report further stated that the applicant accepted no responsibility for negative interactions that occurred with peers and supervisors. Her defensive stance was characteristic of individuals who were trying to maintain the appearance of adequacy and self-control. Individuals with similar profiles are quick to view authorities as corrupt, are hypersensitive and resentful, fear domination and may become enraged when frustrated by others. It was also noted that the applicant routinely rejected tasks that she perceived as being beneath her. Furthermore, when provided feedback on her work performance, she became unstable, disillusioned, paranoid and began yelling that everyone was out to get her. Finally, the report concluded that she repeatedly denied any personal responsibility for any disciplinary actions taken against her and her character manifestations were not congruent with Air Force expectations, needs or standards. As a result, discharge action was initiated. Since the primary reason for discharge was based on the diagnosis of a personality disorder, the SPD code and narrative reason for separation are correct as indicated on the applicant's DD Form 214. Based on a review of the master of personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. There is no evidence of an error or injustice with the processing of the applicant's discharge. The complete AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. The applicant does not provide proof of an error or injustice in reference to her RE code. On 1 September 2004, the separation authority approved the applicant's involuntary discharge with an honorable character of service. The RE code 2C is the correct RE code based on the applicant's involuntary discharge with honorable character of service. The applicant requests her DD Form 214 be changed to reflect RE code IJ (Eligible to reenlist, but elects separation). All Airmen selected under the SRP and elect separation are given RE code lJ. However, the applicant cannot be awarded RE code 1J as her commander recommended her for separation which is more in line with being denied reenlistment by her commander under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) than being selected for reenlistment. The complete AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. The BCMR Clinical Mental Health Advisor recommends denial. The applicant’s separation action was based on a Command Directed Mental Health Evaluation, dated 29 July 2004, which confirms the applicant’s diagnosis of Personality Disorder, the absence of any unfitting mental health diagnosis and the presence of significant occupational impact secondary to her personality disorder. Each of these factors must be confirmed, per AFI 36- 3208, in order for an Airman to undergo administrative separation for “Mental Disorder” (Personality Disorder). Additionally, the evaluation must be signed by a Psychiatrist or PhD-level psychologist. The applicant asserts the signators of the evaluation in question were not credentialed, thus nullifying the validity of the evaluation and subsequently, her discharge action. The advisor contacted the credentials manager at Minot Air Force Base, ND, and inquired regarding the credentials of the three mental health providers in question. It was confirmed that all three providers acted within the scope of their credentials at the time of the evaluation. Medical providers working for the Department of Defense are required to be appropriately licensed in one of the 50 states or DC. They are not required to be licensed in the state of their current geographic location. All documents submitted by individuals for credentialing in a military medical treatment facility are independently verified before credentials are granted. The credentialing process in all U.S. Military Treatment Facilities is certified per national guidelines and provided rigorous oversight via civilian certification/inspection agencies, military inspections and ongoing self-inspection. The advisor finds no evidence of injustice or error in the records reviewed. The advisor has reviewed the available evidence and is satisfied that all three signators of the applicant’s Command Directed Mental Health Evaluation were qualified, both in level of education and via formal credentialing procedures, to perform the evaluation in question. Additionally, the advisor finds the diagnosis and recommendations of the evaluators to be consistent with the available information and the clinical standards and guidelines of the time. The complete BCMR Clinical Mental Health Advisor’s evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant requests the Board review the evidence. She states any letter or document sent to the IG or state representative is considered protected communication and she should have been shielded from unwarranted referral to Life Skills. Those communications provide protection under the Whistle Blowers Protection Act. It doesn’t matter who was licensed and who was not. The applicant discusses the background of the complaint and states she only went to a representative of her state to ask for assistance with leave issues. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD: After careful consideration of applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we find the application untimely. Applicant did not file within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603. The applicant has not shown a plausible reason for the delay in filing, and we are not persuaded that the record raises issues of error or injustice which require resolution on the merits. Thus, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to file in a timely manner. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness. It is the decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03384 in Executive Session on 1 December 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated DD MMM YY, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSORX, dated 27 Aug 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 4 Nov 14. Exhibit E. Memorandum, BCMR Clinical Mental Health Consultant, dated 26 Oct 15. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Oct 15. Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 16 Nov 15.